If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Because the Constitution does not legislate morality, that's why. Under the Constitution, people are supposed to be guaranteed equal rights under the law, regardless of color, creed, gender, and so forth. Not to mention, there's that separation of church and state thing that is meant to keep the church from running the country.

I really don't give a shit what someone's religion says about gay marriage. The arguments against it are the same arguments, dressed up differently, against the repealing of miscegenation laws. It's all about "what can I come up with that the Bible says that I can twist into what I want it to say."

If you want to vote your conscience, fine. If you want to vote your religion? And it interferes with the Constitutional rights of another group? To hell with you. And I don't mean you specifically, it's a general you.

Can you tell that I really loathe the argument of, "my religion says it's bad and icky, so it's okay to make laws against it." No, it's NOT okay.

I wasn't questioning the separation of church and state. I guess what I was getting at is not the laws being put together and all that just the way someone votes. Each person that votes on any topic for any reason votes according to their value system. Each personal has a value system based on their own person experiences and beliefs. So, I guess what I was saying is that there's only so much you can separate. *shrug*

I wasn't questioning the separation of church and state. I guess what I was getting at is not the laws being put together and all that just the way someone votes. Each person that votes on any topic for any reason votes according to their value system. Each person has a value system based on their own person experiences and beliefs. So, I guess what I was saying is that there's only so much you can separate. *shrug*

Our personal reality tunnels are constructs of both our relatonship to the environment and self-sought personal values. The two are inseperable but ultimately your beliefs are dependent upon what you choose to believe. There are no constants things are constantly in a state of flux. However love is a much more highly evolved emotion/chemical construct than hate. Mammals have an infinite advantage over reptiles , birds and fish when it comes to compassionate relations with surroundings and co-inhabitants. We can separate our instinctive flight or fight reaction from being the only available response to things we are unfamiliar with. We are warm blooded creatures in every sense of the word. Some people however choose to be cold blooded reptiles when confronted with new belief systems. I choose to believe that humanity is evolving to a more benevolent creature. However most people do not believe in evolution and are therefore halting the ascencion of our race to a higher level.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

You know Stinky...we didn't have those silly figurines on top of our cake. We could have, but it's just too traditional for our liking. As for the "best people"...her brother and my brother "stood up for us". Our parents are dead, but they would have been there with bells on. Since we had to schlep all the way to Canada, not that many people could attend, BUT if it ever becomes legal in the US....the people will come en masse. Any other questions?

No Chevy, my friends parents are considering him dead because he is gay. So, instead of accepting him, they had a funeral and buried an empty coffin. They didn't kill him.

I wasn't questioning the separation of church and state. I guess what I was getting at is not the laws being put together and all that just the way someone votes. Each person that votes on any topic for any reason votes according to their value system. Each personal has a value system based on their own person experiences and beliefs. So, I guess what I was saying is that there's only so much you can separate. *shrug*

The Constitution has the separation clause to keep one group's version of morality from being used to stomp on another group, for lack of a better term.

That's why the 14th Amendment exists. Slavery is morally repugnant....but there were religious groups who said that owning slaves was a Biblical right.

That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. It's morally repugnant to discriminate against one group because of the color of their skin. And yet, there were religious groups who said it was perfectly FINE to discriminate and segregate, because of their version of the Bible.

That's why, yesterday, the California Supreme Court declared that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Even though religious groups rallied in 2000 to push for a new definition of marriage to keep same-sex marriage from becoming a civil right.

The court has the responsibility to look at the Constitution, and the precedents set by certain amendments to said Constitution. In this case? That's exactly what they did. The court decided that declaring it illegal for a specific segment of the population to have the same civil rights to marry was wrong, regardless of what someone else's religion has to say about it.

I may be a Catholic, but I am also a responsible voter. I vote my conscience, not my religious beliefs. My religion has no place in a voting booth. And neither does anyone else's. And, when people vote according to their church, and disregard the Constitution, hopefully court cases like this one strike down those laws.

Why would someone do that to their own child? Have a funeral because he's gay? They're something might wrong with people who do that. I'd say that house is Dysfunction Junction!

I can possibly understand someone opposing gay marriage it really doesnt matter much to me but disowning a loved one and going through some dumb expensive ritual to prove a point and hurt someone is beyond comprehension!

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

Why does anyone question the sexuality of anyone other than themselves?

Why should they care?

I know that there are certain "moral" objections, just as there are "moral" objections to casinos and gambling.

I choose not to gamble, I do not find fault with those who choose to do so.

We are who we are, and I do not feel that God excludes from his\her love those people who are compelled live a lifestyle somewhat different.

Work hard, respect your fellow humans, have a decent soul, and help others when needed.

Christian, I would say.

My best wishes.

And you summed it up nicely.

I really don't care what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Sometimes, all I care about in my bedroom is getting some sleep! It's none of my business what someone else's sexual proclivities are, as long as their partners are the same species (animals can't give consent), at or above the age of consent, and are able to give consent. No animals, no children, and no one who can't give consent.

Aside from that, if you want to hump a loaf of Wonder Bread, makes no difference to me, as long as you make sure it doesn't live in your breadbox for the unsuspecting to eat. You want to incorporate a cat of nine tails made out of cooked spaghetti? Your business.

I find it fascinating, though, that the people who are sooo concerned with what goes on in SOMEONE ELSE'S bedroom? Are the same people who end up in all kinds of sexual scandals. They certainly feel free to indulge in their particular kink, but God Forbid anyone else should have that opportunity.

When I was in school, my friend in college was dating a black guy. Her father found out and came over to our apartment while I was gone. I came home from school and found my friend, beaten to a pulp by her father because she was dating a black guy. I called the police and her injuries weren't life threatening, and during the report the police asked me what happened. She told me what happened and then I told them. They arrested him some time later, but charges were eventually dropped. She declined to press charges and stopped dating the black guy. I couldn't believe someone would do that to their own child. I've been curious through the years what happened to her.

In memory of a wonderful actor who left us way too soon - William Holden 1918-1981.

BTW, how does the maid of honor or best man situation work in a gay marriage? Would there be two best men when dudes get married and like wise two maids of honor? Also, the plastic couple that goes on the wedding cake...do you have to buy two hetro sets and cut them in half and glue two plastic guys or gals together...or do they make plastic same sexed couples for wedding cakes? I think there needs to be consensus on these issues...and if your Jewish, who steps on the glass?

No stinky, they sell male/male and female/female sets for cake tops...we had them on our cake and no cutting/pasting was necessary!!
Re: best men and maids of honor, because most "religious institutions" wouldn't have us in their churches getting married if it were literally the day before the apocalypse, most of us have civil ceremonies. Thus, no best whatevers or maids of whatevers are generally necessary...

No stinky, they sell male/male and female/female sets for cake tops...we had them on our cake and no cutting/pasting was necessary!!
Re: best men and maids of honor, because most "religious institutions" wouldn't have us in their churches getting married if it were literally the day before the apocalypse, most of us have civil ceremonies. Thus, no best whatevers or maids of whatevers are generally necessary...

One of these days and hopefully in the near future it won't be a big deal and churches will serve all folks without restrictions

One of these days and hopefully in the near future it won't be a big deal and churches will serve all folks without restrictions

That would nice but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime. There are still many churches today that wont do inter-racial marriages and almost as many who won't do marriages between those of different religions.

That would nice but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime. There are still many churches today that wont do inter-racial marriages and almost as many who won't do marriages between those of different religions.

I have not heard of any up here, although MN is pretty liberal.

The problem that a church has is that it will still happen, just not in their church.

In response to Stinky (and I am not calling you or anyone stinky....just abbreviating, as I tend to be long-winded.............ooooooooops, WTF??? I should have just typed in your entire screen name & saved three lines of crapola!!!!)None of my siblings had a "couple" on top of their wedding cakes.....and they are all heterosexual! As for who stands up with the couple, that is (as in straight marriages) entirely up to those being wed. Giving away of the bride or groom is also a non-issue. The last of my siblings to marry did so after our dad died.....she & her groom entered & exited together....it was not traditional (by common standards) but it was beautiful.

In response to Stinky (and I am not calling you or anyone stinky....just abbreviating, as I tend to be long-winded.............ooooooooops, WTF??? I should have just typed in your entire screen name & saved three lines of crapola!!!!)None of my siblings had a "couple" on top of their wedding cakes.....and they are all heterosexual! As for who stands up with the couple, that is (as in straight marriages) entirely up to those being wed. Giving away of the bride or groom is also a non-issue. The last of my siblings to marry did so after our dad died.....she & her groom entered & exited together....it was not traditional (by common standards) but it was beautiful.

Mr. K and I had a couple on top of our wedding cake....but then again, my mom and I made the topper. And used Kenner action figures.

Yes, we had Han Solo and Princess Leia on our wedding cake! Mr. K is a huuuuge Star Wars fan. We have the movies (except for Revenge of the Sith which sucked sweaty, smegma covered monkey balls, IMHO), we have games, we have books. It's ridiculously Star Wars up in here!

And for the record, I'm not inclined to hump Wonder Bread. Neither is Mr. K. I don't think we know anyone who does, but then, that's not exactly a getting-to-know-you question either of us would ask!

Mr. & Mrs. K are too fabulous for words! You are both enlightened & unlevened....or maybe you are both SO levened that we could all just eat you up! (I mean that in the good way, mind you!) Thanks for your enlightend insight! HUGE HagHugs, Dennis

Mr. & Mrs. K are too fabulous for words! You are both enlightened & unlevened....or maybe you are both SO levened that we could all just eat you up! (I mean that in the good way, mind you!) Thanks for your enlightend insight! HUGE HagHugs, Dennis

Dennis, you are too kind!

I think that life experience, combined with a desire to only really worry about the important shit, rather than fall for the stupid arguments.

As in, "the sanctity of marriage is threatened if we let the homasekshuls marry!!eleventy!"

Hmmmph. Sanctity of marriage threatened, my broad, white, Scots-Irish ass. These days, marriage is a pretty cheap idea. It's easy to get married, and easy to get divorced. Well, relatively speaking, having gotten married twice, and divorced once. You don't even have to get blood tests in most places anymore. Allowing gay people to get married cheapens the sanctity of marriage? How about Britney Spears marrying her childhood friend, and getting the marriage annulled 55 hours later? How about Liz Taylor and her, God, eight marriages? (I think it's eight, I know there's a hag or two around here who can correct me) How about that, huh?

Noooo, none of that matters, because they're STRAIGHT! That's perfectly okay for them to cheapen the sanctity of marriage by treating what should be a sacred covenant between two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together, like one big party. That's FINE!

But two women, or *gasp* two MEN, who want to marry each other? That's somehow a threat to my marriage?

Look, what I said to the last person I argued with at the grocery store after hearing that bullshit, was this. If you don't like gay marriage, well, then, you shouldn't do that. It's not like the state of California is sending out the Marriage Police to the homes of every straight married couple, breaking us all up, and making us all engage in same-sex marriage, for Christ's sake!

People who will not think about the implications of denying basic civil rights to a group of people drive me crazy.

Oh, and for the record? I do firmly believe that the people who argue against same-sex marriage? Probably would have been arguing against the repealing of miscegenation laws that prevented people of different races from marrying. After all, I'm sure somewhere in the Bible is some verse or another that someone could use to defend that position. GOD said it's bad, according to this book, so it's BAD.

To be honest, I think that most people who claim religious grounds (and no, I'm not saying EVERYONE who does), or moral grounds, for opposing same-sex marriage just opposes it because they think homosexuality is "icky". I think radishes are icky, but I don't oppose the grocery store selling radishes. I just don't buy them. I think tripe is icky, but I don't oppose the eating of tripe by other people. I just don't eat tripe.

I have no real objection to homosexuality. People are who they are, and that's that. I'm not gay, but it doesn't matter....everyone is entitled to the same civil rights under the law.

I don't think that the war is going to end anytime soon. Or, not at least, until someone who is not a stooge of the current administration is elected as President. You think McCain would bring troops home before the "mission" is "accomplished", regardless of not having a mission, not having an exit strategy, and so forth? I know I don't think he would.

Cancer? AIDS? You think this administration is really willing to fund research to come up with a vaccine against a "gay disease" like AIDS? Yeah, they're so on fire about the Gardasil vaccine, against HPV, which, you know, you get from having Teh Secks. Cancer treatment? But, but, there's a War on Terra! TERRA! TERRARISTS! MUSLIMS!!ELEVENTY!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!!

Yeah...not exactly impressed with any aspect of this administration. I didn't vote for the fucker....

Yes indeed....and ALL citizens of the USA should be able to focus on the things that affect our nation as a whole.....but when they get the political machines rolling, I tend to think that the issue of the "sanctity of marriage" is brought up to try to thwart folks from selecting a president who will do the best job and instead select the guy who has the strongest views on keeping every marriage sacred by disallowing an entire group of us our civil rights.

I have doubts that the issue of gay marriage would have much of an impact this time around unlike 2004. For starters the religious right is not exactly gung-ho about McCain. Pat Roberston wanted Rudy to win, Dobson was for Huckabee and Jerry Falwell...dead ya know.

Even with California's decision a lot of states within the past few years did pass their own bans against gay marriage and it would be very tough to overturn them even though some of those states did allow the door to be open for civil unions.

I just don't get why it should be such a big issue. No, the problem is, I get it only too well. Who cares whether you're gay or straight or bi or rather who should care? You love someone, you want to marry them, do it. I'm straight and other than my gay friends having a harder time dealing with their parents, we all have the same relationship problems. Seriously, pedophiles get away with murder but when it's a gay couple wanting to get married or (God forbid) adopt, then all hell breaks loose.

So you've been taking care of a person all this time, or you've just been living with them, the "family" couldn't care less (because if they did they'd obviously be around) and then when an accident happens or the question turns to turning off life support, they draw in the strangers but your partner, who's been with you all this time and knows you, gets no say in the matter and the relatives just snatch all the money. Things like that make me sick.

This also cracks me up, we're always taught how Ancient Greece is the basis of our democracy (in all the democratic countries I've lived in anyway) but I only ever had one History teacher mention almost as an aside, that the Greeks had "young companions". Like it's a sin, something that should be hushed up. And as far as adoption is concerned, the way I see it, you want a child badly enough to go through all the bureaucracy, you're gonna make damn sure that this child you've been waiting for will have everything i.e. love, a "good" home as in a safe place it can always come to, doesn't matter if you're straight or gay.

I just don't get why it should be such a big issue. No, the problem is, I get it only too well. Who cares whether you're gay or straight or bi or rather who should care? You love someone, you want to marry them, do it. I'm straight and other than my gay friends having a harder time dealing with their parents, we all have the same relationship problems. Seriously, pedophiles get away with murder but when it's a gay couple wanting to get married or (God forbid) adopt, then all hell breaks loose.

So you've been taking care of a person all this time, or you've just been living with them, the "family" couldn't care less (because if they did they'd obviously be around) and then when an accident happens or the question turns to turning off life support, they draw in the strangers but your partner, who's been with you all this time and knows you, gets no say in the matter and the relatives just snatch all the money. Things like that make me sick.

This also cracks me up, we're always taught how Ancient Greece is the basis of our democracy (in all the democratic countries I've lived in anyway) but I only ever had one History teacher mention almost as an aside, that the Greeks had "young companions". Like it's a sin, something that should be hushed up. And as far as adoption is concerned, the way I see it, you want a child badly enough to go through all the bureaucracy, you're gonna make damn sure that this child you've been waiting for will have everything i.e. love, a "good" home as in a safe place it can always come to, doesn't matter if you're straight or gay.

Been up all night so forgive the rambling.

Forgiven. Stream of Conciousness ramblig is my favorite pasttime. People just love to hate for no reason. Its almost like a fuel that keeps their whole existance running.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

I just don't get why it should be such a big issue. No, the problem is, I get it only too well. Who cares whether you're gay or straight or bi or rather who should care? You love someone, you want to marry them, do it. I'm straight and other than my gay friends having a harder time dealing with their parents, we all have the same relationship problems. Seriously, pedophiles get away with murder but when it's a gay couple wanting to get married or (God forbid) adopt, then all hell breaks loose.

So you've been taking care of a person all this time, or you've just been living with them, the "family" couldn't care less (because if they did they'd obviously be around) and then when an accident happens or the question turns to turning off life support, they draw in the strangers but your partner, who's been with you all this time and knows you, gets no say in the matter and the relatives just snatch all the money. Things like that make me sick.

This also cracks me up, we're always taught how Ancient Greece is the basis of our democracy (in all the democratic countries I've lived in anyway) but I only ever had one History teacher mention almost as an aside, that the Greeks had "young companions". Like it's a sin, something that should be hushed up. And as far as adoption is concerned, the way I see it, you want a child badly enough to go through all the bureaucracy, you're gonna make damn sure that this child you've been waiting for will have everything i.e. love, a "good" home as in a safe place it can always come to, doesn't matter if you're straight or gay.

Been up all night so forgive the rambling.

Your up-all-night ramblings make much more sense than 99.9% of my ramblings at any hour of the day or night.....so no forgiveness is necessary!

And the Constitution was not written to step on peoples' freedoms like that. Hence, the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage.

Naturally, the religious groups are already declaring war on that. Good fucking luck, it was already declared unconstitutional to restrict the accessibility or legality of CIVIL marriage in that manner. I can't wait to see the bullshit ballot proposition they put out. You KNOW it's coming.

My personal opinion is that being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with morality, but is in the genes. No one, in their right mind, would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to a lifetime of cruelty, discrimination, slander, ridicule, or which condemns their souls to eternal damnation.

For members of the clergy weighing in here (and I thank you for sharing your thoughts, truly I do,) I must ask: why is it acceptable for clergy to go into a prison to preach to murderers and rapists, apparently accepting those sins as "forgivable?" Is it perhaps because the sinners are incarcerated and can't go out to do anymore damage, thus making them worthy of the time and effort it takes to get them to "find God?"

How can you justify "saving" a felon, despite his/her morally reprehensible acts against humanity, while holding the "sins" of gays/lesbians to the same standards as murderers? Gays and lesbians are being honest about what's in their hearts; most felons are not. They are con artists. There is no grace in a prison. Is it not also true that gay and lesbian members of the Christian faith accept and worship God just as fervently as do heterosexuals? Isn't it pretty obvious that vicious felons "find God" in prison because they think it makes them more eligible to get out sooner and because they have nothing better to do? So on the side of religion, I say there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in play here, without even getting into the sexual abuse scandals or crazy sects that condone bigamy and child rape "according to scripture."

From a legal standpoint, in the United States, if there is a domestic dispute, the only recourse any couple has in a court of law is if they're married, and that's not always a bargaining chip with issues like health insurance or Power of Attorney matters. Even heterosexual couples don't reap the benefits of "marriage" when insurance companies hold all the power to deny coverage, and when situations like the Terry Schiavo debacle go to court. In a heterosexual union, the law says that the spouse has the final say as to what happens, but the courts are still batting that issue around like it's a tennis ball. Either the spouse has the final say or he/she doesn't. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

It's a complicated debate, and anyone who bothered to read my entire post deserves a good stiff drink and a neck massage, but thanks for listening to my little and loud opinions.

I'd like to take a stab on this one. I'm fairly religious, but I also try to be open minded- even though I belong to a religion that doesn't really have a huge place in it for women- seen and not heard blah blah blah (If I ever get a chance to meet good ol' St. Paul in the afterlife, I'm going to kick his ass for being such a sexist pig).

Being in an extremely conservative church does label me to some degree. I don't like it, and maybe I should find a more progressive church, but I find comfort in the liturgy and services and am happy where I am. I just keep my opinions to myself (well... except that one time when there was a disagreement with my father in law over the whole "obey and submit" thing in the wedding- I thought his head was going to explode). It's quite maddening at times to be in such a closed minded church.

Anyhoo, I digess. Sorry.

In answer to your question MbalmR- and this is coming from what I remember of all my years in religious private schools- so it may be a little disjointed.

God loves everyone and forgives them their sins. If they truly repent and never do that sin again. I don't think that its that one sin is more forgiveable than another- its what you do with the rest of your life after you have been forgiven of the sins you committed. Being "gay" isn't a sin. Acting on it is. Repenting of your sins means you renounce your sin and never do it again. I think people in prison are ministered to because their sin is more "visible" than others. People in prison have been found guilty of whatever crime they have committed and are in the public eye for it. Homosexual sex, while a sin, is not against the law, at least nowadays I don't think it is aside from a few obscure ancient laws that everyone ignores anyway. There are ministry groups out there for gays/lesbians, but I don't know a lot about them. So its not that some sins are more forgiveable than others, its that some are more visible.

I have some other thoughts on this- I'll share later if I can string my thoughts together coherently.

I go to a methodist church we have a big sign out front that says open hearts, open minds, open doors. I have seen gay couples in the congregation on Sundays. I wonder if they would allow a ring ceremony? Or a reception for a gay couple who had married elsewere? I'm going to have to check this out.

There are ministry groups out there for gays/lesbians, but I don't know a lot about them. So its not that some sins are more forgiveable than others, its that some are more visible.

When you mean those ministry groups, do you mean groups that are gay friendly or those groups that claim they can "help" someone who is gay to go straight? The latter isn't exactly religious since some ( perhaps all ) of those groups do promote hetrosexual sex reguardless if its within marriage or not.

When I lived in LA, I would attend the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church) in downtown LA. This is the "mother church" off all the gay ministries. They preach the words of Christ and it's no different than any other church except for the fact that 99% of the congregation happens to be gay.
I've seen those "we can fix you" ministries and I don't buy into it for a second. Anyone see, "But, I'm a Cheerleader!"? You can't wave a magic wand and expect it to go away. Good grief!

DietCokeofEvil.....I'm sure that there are gazzilions of us who look forward to giving ole Paul a swift kick in the ass.....and/or the nads.

I've weighed in (too often) here perhaps....as well as on the Catholic thread. Being the rare but certainly not unique OUT gay Catholic.....while I know what the church teachings are...and you outlined them pretty well. I'm fortunate to be able to attend & participate in a weekly mass that is for the GLBT community. None of the priests who are in the rotation have ever preached or even suggested that we should all be celibate. I'm one of those "cafeteria catholics" who picks & chooses his dogma. I know that some folks take exception to this type.

I'd no sooner turn my back on my faith than I would foreswear sex. I believe that God made us sexual beings & that the use of this gift is good. I don't think that God cares who or how we love....as long as we don't violate the sacred trust of children (or animals).

hmm, well ive hesitated to post an opinion about the issue here out of fear of starting a firestorm. But I am against the ruling in California personally. The idea has been pitched to the voters 3 times in the last 4 elections and despite how great people say it may be to be legalized, the propsition was shot down every time by the people. The anit-gay marrage groups have come out of the walls collecting sum 4 million signatures so again, it will be put to the voters of California in an effort to overthrow the judges ruling. It will be on the november California ballot.

However California is a trendsetting state. What starts here gets picked up by other states. ( Discrimination against smokers, The Seat Belt law, The Motorcycle Helmet law , ect ) So theres no doubt other states are watching this closely. But worried about it, no not hardly. The war, well I dont know anybody in iraq or afghanistan but im for the war personally and support bush's war on terror, cancer... well i smoke a carton of cigarettes a week so no, cancer dosent worry me either , what worries me, I cant go outside after dark here, Oaklands murder rate is sky high, having to stay indoors after dark out of fear ... that worries me.

As a gay person I don't understand this issue entirely. It seems that everyone is caught up on this word "marriage". Gays don't want "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" Anti gay Heteros don't want us having any rights. I think you have to divide this issue. What is a marriage and what is a partnership? I am pretty sure the government is supposed to seperate church and state despite the GOP's attempt to marry the two. So let's define our terms. "Marriage" is a union blessed by your religious choice, whatever that may be. A "civil union" is a contract blessed by the governing body. They are two seperate things. When you get a marriage license you receive this from city hall, right? What is the goal of this license? It's to legally recognize you as a partnership and thus receive all the benefits (tax, inheritance, medical care and guardianship, that sort of thing). I'm not sure that the church is the one bestowing these rights onto anyone. So let's call these things what they are. Any two people who wish to enter into this type of arrangement no matter what their sexual orientation, religion, race can then apply to the government for a contractual license and let it be called a CIVIL union for everyone. If you so choose and your particular church allows then you may also have a ceremony in a church OR you can have any kind of ceremony you want wherever you want. Call it a marraige ceremony, call it a ring ceremony, call it whatever makes you happy. Your family and friends can gather around you and celebrate this event. No religion is or should be forced to recognize that of which they do not approve. In return the church doesn't get to dictate to the governing body what legal contracts they are able to issue.

Mebbe perhaps, instead of dictating who can or cannot be married, partnered, civil unioned etc. , we should work on making it harder to get divorced. Aside from abuse situations where it can be proven, use longer waiting periods, make it costlier etc. I dunno, I may be off track, but maybe if its harder to get divorced, people will put more thought into who they marry.

Mebbe perhaps, instead of dictating who can or cannot be married, partnered, civil unioned etc. , we should work on making it harder to get divorced. Aside from abuse situations where it can be proven, use longer waiting periods, make it costlier etc. I dunno, I may be off track, but maybe if its harder to get divorced, people will put more thought into who they marry.

The Commonwealth of Virginia back in 2004 almost did just that. Make divorce harder to get at least in Virginia. Actually the same guy who was the force behind the banning of gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnership admendement was behind that as well. However and sadly Virginia dropped the idea of changing the divorce laws thinking "oddly" it would not fly with the religious-right.

The more I think about the issue of gay marriage and such, I am begining to think that maybe this is one thing that should NOT go before the voters. As long as the general public votes on this issue there will always be the religious right and others who will make it seem that a vote for gay marriage is like a slap across the face of Jesus and chances are the law will fail. Same thing if the issue of abortion went before the voters too. Chances are that will fail and back we go to the days of the back alley dangerous abortions.

Also even though the Supreme Court made inter-racial marriages legal back in the mid 60's, as recently as the 1980's public opinion polls showed more people were AGAINST the idea of mixed marriages than in favor. Had the public had a chance to vote on this issue ( and chances are the religious right would have gotten involved ), well odds are inter-racial marriages would still be illegal today.The general public couldn't vote on the issue of inter-racial marriages, why should they with gay marriages? Both are sensitive issues.

Besides once the laws against gay marriages passes, in many states that is still not enough. Whats next? Gays can't adopt? ( already thats the case in Florida ). Gays can't teach school? Gay men and women should not be allowed to work in radio and television within a state because of their sexuality? Should an employer ask an employee if he/she is gay? Should an employer FIRE someone if he/she is gay? All of these issues I believe have been either before the voter or at least there was an attempt to bring them before the voters in a least a few states.

Any two people who wish to enter into this type of arrangement no matter what their sexual orientation, religion, race can then apply to the government for a contractual license and let it be called a CIVIL union for everyone. If you so choose and your particular church allows then you may also have a ceremony in a church OR you can have any kind of ceremony you want wherever you want. Call it a marraige ceremony, call it a ring ceremony, call it whatever makes you happy. Your family and friends can gather around you and celebrate this event. No religion is or should be forced to recognize that of which they do not approve. In return the church doesn't get to dictate to the governing body what legal contracts they are able to issue.

I could live with that.....ever since this issue became a legal possibility, it has gnawed away at me, that the government issues MARRIAGE lisences but ONLY if you qualify.

There's a whole lot of folks out there who give us reason to believe that the government should also give parenting lisences....for those who qualify......there've been too many stories in the news of tragic deaths of children whose parent or parents were found to be responsible.

Still stand where I always have... do what ya will, gay, straight, with appliances, whips, horsey, whatever. just keep out of my bedroom... as far as PDA issues just respect the people around you... no one wants to see a couple getting intimate while playing with their kids in the park or walking the dog, again, gay, straight or otherwise... wanna get married I'm all for it. it's stupid people eve make this an issue... it isn't as though anyone will stop being gay just because they can't be married...

My personal opinion is that being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with morality, but is in the genes. No one, in their right mind, would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to a lifetime of cruelty, discrimination, slander, ridicule, or which condemns their souls to eternal damnation.

For members of the clergy weighing in here (and I thank you for sharing your thoughts, truly I do,) I must ask: why is it acceptable for clergy to go into a prison to preach to murderers and rapists, apparently accepting those sins as "forgivable?" Is it perhaps because the sinners are incarcerated and can't go out to do anymore damage, thus making them worthy of the time and effort it takes to get them to "find God?"

How can you justify "saving" a felon, despite his/her morally reprehensible acts against humanity, while holding the "sins" of gays/lesbians to the same standards as murderers? Gays and lesbians are being honest about what's in their hearts; most felons are not. They are con artists. There is no grace in a prison. Is it not also true that gay and lesbian members of the Christian faith accept and worship God just as fervently as do heterosexuals? Isn't it pretty obvious that vicious felons "find God" in prison because they think it makes them more eligible to get out sooner and because they have nothing better to do? So on the side of religion, I say there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in play here, without even getting into the sexual abuse scandals or crazy sects that condone bigamy and child rape "according to scripture."

From a legal standpoint, in the United States, if there is a domestic dispute, the only recourse any couple has in a court of law is if they're married, and that's not always a bargaining chip with issues like health insurance or Power of Attorney matters. Even heterosexual couples don't reap the benefits of "marriage" when insurance companies hold all the power to deny coverage, and when situations like the Terry Schiavo debacle go to court. In a heterosexual union, the law says that the spouse has the final say as to what happens, but the courts are still batting that issue around like it's a tennis ball. Either the spouse has the final say or he/she doesn't. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

It's a complicated debate, and anyone who bothered to read my entire post deserves a good stiff drink and a neck massage, but thanks for listening to my little and loud opinions.

What I find amusing is the number of people in the senate or other government agencies that are against it for religious reasons have been married and divorced several times. If memory serves, isn't divorce a sin? Also, we have to remember that not too many years ago, marriages of opposite races was deemed immoral as well. If you are against it, wonderful! Just remember that the next time you are caught with a gay prostitute. ( I address that to people in government agencies ).

They have also been found in toilets making a play for the guy next to them.

Wasn't trying to dig as you stated... just expressing my thoughts on what a feeble mind is to me. A healthy, unaltered brain functions as intended is all I meant. Just because one person has a different belief than another it doesn't make one better than the other.... just different. I have not chosen a side to this debate, simply questioning some of the statements made on both sides. It was not my intent to be inflammatory.

IN the days of long ago, when my great grand parents got "senile" thjey were called "feebleminded". Now days it is dementia if caused by alcohol or old age. When it is drugs they jsut say "fried"

Naturally, the religious groups are already declaring war on that. Good fucking luck, it was already declared unconstitutional to restrict the accessibility or legality of CIVIL marriage in that manner. I can't wait to see the bullshit ballot proposition they put out. You KNOW it's coming.

When it does Ich, we shall go down there with my "crackerknockers" and bust a few skulls LOL